Washington Redskins change their name

[keefe]

many moons, heap-big, paleface

I am curious where these expressions came from. Did any native ever actually use these terms or was this all sprung from the febrile imagination of some Hollywood screen writer. I tend to think this was less Robert M. Utley and Dee Brown and more Dudley Nichols.

Nichols was actually quite talented but Hollywood was notorious for reducing non-Caucasians to demeaning stereotypes. Asians were lumped together in a generic Yellow Peril motif - until Pearl Harbor forced Hollywood to differentiate the evil Japanese through simian imagery from the benignly inept but somehow worthy of helping Chinese. Mexicans and Hispanics were portrayed as indolent, unwashed, untrustworthy, and generally unsavory while African Americans were cast as slothful, superstitious imbeciles motivated only by baser carnal urges which they could scarcely control. Natives were cast entirely as blood thirsty savages who required extermination like some form of pernicious vermin.

What all these groups shared was a lack of cultural dignity that would otherwise qualify them for a seat at the American table. Their backwardness, ignorance, and unsuitability for inclusion was reinforced through ludicrous diction and pronunciation in bizarre forms of idiomatic English that marginalized them in the extreme.

Whether or not Redskin is embraced by whomever is not really the answer. The fact is that it is linked to a vulgar heritage that went unquestioned in a less sophisticated and culturally dissembling past. PepsiCo openly pitched the sale of a power brand through the use of a filthy, lazy, unwashed Mexican thief who sported stubble, a gold tooth and uncombed hair and sang in a grossly exaggerated accent that he was out to steal your salty snack. Would anyone find the return of that imagery acceptable?

I think if we look back at the Anglo characterization of non-Caucasians the Redskin thematic fits squarely in that overall narrative and should only be assessed through that paradigm. 



     

[MU82]

I am curious where these expressions came from. Did any native ever actually use these terms or was this all sprung from the febrile imagination of some Hollywood screen writer. I tend to think this was less Robert M. Utley and Dee Brown and more Dudley Nichols.

Nichols was actually quite talented but Hollywood was notorious for reducing non-Caucasians to demeaning stereotypes. Asians were lumped together in a generic Yellow Peril motif - until Pearl Harbor forced Hollywood to differentiate the evil Japanese through simian imagery from the benignly inept but somehow worthy of helping Chinese. Mexicans and Hispanics were portrayed as indolent, unwashed, untrustworthy, and generally unsavory while African Americans were cast as slothful, superstitious imbeciles motivated only by baser carnal urges which they could scarcely control. Natives were cast entirely as blood thirsty savages who required extermination like some form of pernicious vermin.

What all these groups shared was a lack of cultural dignity that would otherwise qualify them for a seat at the American table. Their backwardness, ignorance, and unsuitability for inclusion was reinforced through ludicrous diction and pronunciation in bizarre forms of idiomatic English that marginalized them in the extreme.

Whether or not Redskin is embraced by whomever is not really the answer. The fact is that it is linked to a vulgar heritage that went unquestioned in a less sophisticated and culturally dissembling past. PepsiCo openly pitched the sale of a power brand through the use of a filthy, lazy, unwashed Mexican thief who sported stubble, a gold tooth and uncombed hair and sang in a grossly exaggerated accent that he was out to steal your salty snack. Would anyone find the return of that imagery acceptable?

I think if we look back at the Anglo characterization of non-Caucasians the Redskin thematic fits squarely in that overall narrative and should only be assessed through that paradigm.  



    

Oh sure, take my ridiculous post and try turning it into a rational conversation.

Don't respond to keefe, anybody! He speakum with forked tongue and drinkum too much fire water!!

Go Scalping Savages!!!!!

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Maybe, but you have no idea if that is the case.  Nor the time horizon.  Lots of things are predicted, some even based on "science".  We're supposed to be out of ice this year, yet cap has grown 41% according to NASA year over year.  We were supposed to have terrible hurricane seasons the last 5 years, we've had below normal.  We're supposed to have increased global warming, now 19 straight years that isn't the case.  Unemployment was supposed to be down below 6% 4 years ago....still not.   

All kinds of predictions about the future, what's going to happen, what isn't.  No one knows, it is all speculation. 

As for the built in incumbancy factor....sure that exists to some extent.  However, the idea of change just to change isn't always the best strategy either.  I give you the remarks of several Native Americans who said changing the name means we will be all but forgotten and we major issues to deal with that you don't understand.  Our education, unemployment, alcoholism, etc, are far greater issues then a stupid nickname, but take away that nickname and we aren't even in the sports pages any longer. 

You're a little scattered here, so let me just ask you straight out:

In 5 years, if the polls say the 51% of Native Americans, players in the NFL, and general public say they don't like the name, are you cool with making a change? Is there a magic number or threshold that would change your mind on the issue?

You've used the polls and data to support your position, which is fair, but the knife cuts both ways.

[GGGG]

I am curious where these expressions came from. Did any native ever actually use these terms or was this all sprung from the febrile imagination of some Hollywood screen writer. I tend to think this was less Robert M. Utley and Dee Brown and more Dudley Nichols.

Nichols was actually quite talented but Hollywood was notorious for reducing non-Caucasians to demeaning stereotypes. Asians were lumped together in a generic Yellow Peril motif - until Pearl Harbor forced Hollywood to differentiate the evil Japanese through simian imagery from the benignly inept but somehow worthy of helping Chinese. Mexicans and Hispanics were portrayed as indolent, unwashed, untrustworthy, and generally unsavory while African Americans were cast as slothful, superstitious imbeciles motivated only by baser carnal urges which they could scarcely control. Natives were cast entirely as blood thirsty savages who required extermination like some form of pernicious vermin.

What all these groups shared was a lack of cultural dignity that would otherwise qualify them for a seat at the American table. Their backwardness, ignorance, and unsuitability for inclusion was reinforced through ludicrous diction and pronunciation in bizarre forms of idiomatic English that marginalized them in the extreme.

Whether or not Redskin is embraced by whomever is not really the answer. The fact is that it is linked to a vulgar heritage that went unquestioned in a less sophisticated and culturally dissembling past. PepsiCo openly pitched the sale of a power brand through the use of a filthy, lazy, unwashed Mexican thief who sported stubble, a gold tooth and uncombed hair and sang in a grossly exaggerated accent that he was out to steal your salty snack. Would anyone find the return of that imagery acceptable?

I think if we look back at the Anglo characterization of non-Caucasians the Redskin thematic fits squarely in that overall narrative and should only be assessed through that paradigm. 
   

<applause>

That is the "drop the mic and walk away" post of this thread.

[Lennys Tap]

I am curious where these expressions came from. Did any native ever actually use these terms or was this all sprung from the febrile imagination of some Hollywood screen writer. I tend to think this was less Robert M. Utley and Dee Brown and more Dudley Nichols.

Nichols was actually quite talented but Hollywood was notorious for reducing non-Caucasians to demeaning stereotypes. Asians were lumped together in a generic Yellow Peril motif - until Pearl Harbor forced Hollywood to differentiate the evil Japanese through simian imagery from the benignly inept but somehow worthy of helping Chinese. Mexicans and Hispanics were portrayed as indolent, unwashed, untrustworthy, and generally unsavory while African Americans were cast as slothful, superstitious imbeciles motivated only by baser carnal urges which they could scarcely control. Natives were cast entirely as blood thirsty savages who required extermination like some form of pernicious vermin.

What all these groups shared was a lack of cultural dignity that would otherwise qualify them for a seat at the American table. Their backwardness, ignorance, and unsuitability for inclusion was reinforced through ludicrous diction and pronunciation in bizarre forms of idiomatic English that marginalized them in the extreme.





     

Careful, Keefe. To Chico, the USA was a much better place back then. If you listen closely, you'll hear him singing along with Archie and Edith on "Those Were The Days".

[Lennys Tap]

Really, if you don't know the difference between science based polls and social based polls, I don't know what to tell you.

Look at polls even 10 years ago regarding such things as gay marriage, marijuana, women's rights, religion etc and compare them to today's polls. The writing is on the wall. The days of the NFL making money off of blatant racism are numbered

Maybe Chico is right. Maybe people like him will be able to reverse the tides of progress - enact and enforce tough sodomy laws, make marijuana possession a felony, outlaw interracial marriage, return women to second class citizenship, celebrate racial stereotypes and slurs, etc., - but I don't think so. Can't speak for the young people in his life, but the ones I know aren't interested in going there.

[rocket surgeon]

well the jury speaks-espn poll says 71% says keep the redskins name-so there you have it

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11451964/redskins-poll-most-favor-keeping-name-dissent-growing

[rocket surgeon]

looks like it's open trolling season chico

[brandx]

My sources tell me Snyder is going to change the team's name to ...

Scalping Savages!

It works on so many levels.

Numerous polls have shown that Injuns actually like being called savages because it has such a manly connotation - and that's just the squaws talking!

Says MMA star Dan Hornbuckle, a modern-day savage from the Cherokee tribe: "And how! For many moons, redskins like being called savages. Those who no like it ... me thinkum they stinkum!"

The scalping part, duh, what American wouldn't love being associated with an activity that goes back centuries? It's a heap-big tradition - every bit as fun as other all-American traditions such as slavery and torture! - and that's reason enough to justify any nickname! The Injuns have the powerful NTA (National Tomahawk Association) lobby pouring money into Congress to make sure there never is any meaningful tomahawk-control legislation. So what if a 9-year-old accidentally killed her instructor at a scalping range? That's life; deal with it!

As Pocahontas famously said: "Back off, paleface. You'll have to pry this tomahawk from my cold, dead hands!"

The Scalping Savages. I think Snyder has a winner there!

Tonto sent me a smoke signal approving of this suggestion.

Q

[ChicosBailBonds]

Whether or not Redskin is embraced by whomever is not really the answer. The fact is that it is linked to a vulgar heritage that went unquestioned in a less sophisticated and culturally dissembling past. PepsiCo openly pitched the sale of a power brand through the use of a filthy, lazy, unwashed Mexican thief who sported stubble, a gold tooth and uncombed hair and sang in a grossly exaggerated accent that he was out to steal your salty snack. Would anyone find the return of that imagery acceptable?

I would argue advertisers and media do this often regardless of who it is.  They have no problem poking fun at people and stereotyping, so the imagery does become acceptable.  Does Family Guy portray white, middle age dudes in a certain way?  How about the Simpsons?  Do we portray the female secretary in commercials, tv shows, movies as someone that is horned up and can't wait to get it on with the boss?  Guy in a BBQ commercial is some lumpy white dude with a Hawaiian shirt.  A commercial about a mop or cleaning supplies 99.9% of the time features a woman, why not a guy doing those chores?  Etc, etc. 

Totally get your point, but I think "the return" happens a lot, just some people can laugh at this stuff and some people are outraged at the drop of a hat.


Remember the Intel computing ad from about 5 years ago...with the track athletes in the cubes and an office manager.  If the office manager was a female or Asian, or the track athletes were kids or something....you get the idea.  That was something.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Maybe Chico is right. Maybe people like him will be able to reverse the tides of progress - enact and enforce tough sodomy laws, make marijuana possession a felony, outlaw interracial marriage, return women to second class citizenship, celebrate racial stereotypes and slurs, etc., - but I don't think so. Can't speak for the young people in his life, but the ones I know aren't interested in going there.

Ah yes, don't forget Hitler, Nazis and a few others in there.  LOL.   It's red herring and canard season.   


Just so we're clear and you can get the Summer's Eve off your face that you're bathing in again.....

Interracial marriage...never an issue with it
Women as second class citizens....nope
Could care less what two consenting adults do in the bedroom...not gov'ts business

Marijuana.....First of all, it is not always a felony.  Second, I just ask for consistency.  More and more studies showing the health harms caused by it, be it heart, brain, etc.  We can't wait to get rid of tobacco in this country and tax it to such extremes and sue companies to the point of ridiculousness, but we're all fine and dandy of bringing in this drug for new revenues.  Why the double standard?  Who does one sue down the road when this all goes to hell?  The gov't?  LOL. 

Celebrate racial slurs....who is deciding what is a slur...you?  So we get to ignore those that say it is a term of honor....oh that's right, they're dumb, ignorant, stupid, unwashed....I keep forgetting.

So the young people you know don't always agree....well damn, that's good to know, especially with how smart some of the young people are and all.  How many things did you believe or support when you were young only to change your tune when you got smarter, wiser, etc?  That's the bonus of age and wisdom and experience.  That doesn't mean they are wrong, just because they are young, but that doesn't mean they have the keys to the world and "progress" either.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You're a little scattered here, so let me just ask you straight out:

In 5 years, if the polls say the 51% of Native Americans, players in the NFL, and general public say they don't like the name, are you cool with making a change? Is there a magic number or threshold that would change your mind on the issue?

You've used the polls and data to support your position, which is fair, but the knife cuts both ways.

Not scattered at all.  Predictions made all the time, some are "settled science" and the predictions come out dead wrong.  Some are just predictions...I heard we were going to win the Big East last year.  Doesn't make the predictions right, that was the point....you have no idea what is going to happen in the future.  It's a prediction, nothing more.

62% of Americans believe Abortion is morally wrong....so we should abolish it....right?  58% oppose it in all circumstances.  It's the majority, after-all, seems we should get with it and change the law.

See, I can play this game all day if you wish.  There will be polls that support positions and those that oppose it.  There will be people that despite the polls that will say "I don't care what the polls say, it's a slur".  There will be people that will use the polls to back their position (as I have done with the Redskins).  No one is denying that happens, it does and will always be the case. 

Ultimately to answer your question, which I have answered here many times before.  I am greatly worried that we have pissed on Native Americans for many years and I find that sports teams, by and large, is one way in which we honor Native Americans.  Many Native Americans feel the same way.  I am worried that we start to abandon some of these names, these people get further pushed out of the mainstream and completely off our radars.  How many people in this country know about the Seminoles or have heard of the Seminoles because of FSU?  A heck of a lot more than if that nickname didn't exist.  It's relevancy.  So if the majority of Native Americans want it gone....ACTUAL NATIVE AMERICANS and not their organizations (i.e. the AMA supported Obamacare but actual doctors are opposed to it....or unions support a certain law or politician but many of their membership doesn't) then I would be much more sympathetic.  HOWEVER, it's still a private company and they can do what they want.  If the people don't like it, don't buy their stuff, don't go to games, have protests every night.

[Lennys Tap]

Celebrate racial slurs....who is deciding what is a slur...you? 

Well, it could be me, since I most definitely remember "redskin" being used as a racial slur in TV shows and movies, but since you'd never accept that, no...not me. It's those "pesky facts" that decide it. Buy a dictionary, it's in the definition.

[Coleman]

62% of Americans believe Abortion is morally wrong....so we should abolish it....right?  58% oppose it in all circumstances.  It's the majority, after-all, seems we should get with it and change the law.

That is just false: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

How you can leap 37 points from 21% to 58% is beyond me

[Spotcheck Billy]

Ultimately to answer your question, which I have answered here many times before.  I am greatly worried that we have pissed on Native Americans for many years and I find that sports teams, by and large, is one way in which we honor Native Americans.  Many Native Americans feel the same way.  I am worried that we start to abandon some of these names, these people get further pushed out of the mainstream and completely off our radars.  How many people in this country know about the Seminoles or have heard of the Seminoles because of FSU?  A heck of a lot more than if that nickname didn't exist.  It's relevancy.  So if the majority of Native Americans want it gone....ACTUAL NATIVE AMERICANS

that worked so well for the old Sambo's restaurants (used to be over 1000 in the US)

[ChicosBailBonds]

that worked so well for the old Sambo's restaurants (used to be over 1000 in the US)

I remember it well.  Sambo's was named after Sam Battistone, Sr. and Newell Bohnett (owner of the New Orleans Jazz at one point).  Growing up, many families went there just like one would go to Denny's or IHOP or Norm's.  They were all over California as they started in Santa Barabara \ Ventura area.  The original is still open in Santa Barbara.    http://www.sambosrestaurant.com/

They chose after launch of a few years to associate the brand with the story line of the main character from the book.  In the late 1970's, there was outrage around it.  The public decided they weren't going to frequent any longer. They went into bankruptcy. 

If people don't want the Redskins name, don't buy their tickets, don't watch their games, don't buy their merchandise and the market will take care of itself....just like it did with Sambo's.  Thing is, that's not good enough for the "tolerant", well "educated" folks that are so tolerant and smart they'll even tell Native Americans how they should think, which is special.

[MU82]

Doesn't matter.

Snyder's going with Scalping Savages anyway!

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Not scattered at all.  Predictions made all the time, some are "settled science" and the predictions come out dead wrong.  Some are just predictions...I heard we were going to win the Big East last year.  Doesn't make the predictions right, that was the point....you have no idea what is going to happen in the future.  It's a prediction, nothing more.

62% of Americans believe Abortion is morally wrong....so we should abolish it....right?  58% oppose it in all circumstances.  It's the majority, after-all, seems we should get with it and change the law.

See, I can play this game all day if you wish.  There will be polls that support positions and those that oppose it.  There will be people that despite the polls that will say "I don't care what the polls say, it's a slur".  There will be people that will use the polls to back their position (as I have done with the Redskins).  No one is denying that happens, it does and will always be the case. 

Ultimately to answer your question, which I have answered here many times before.  I am greatly worried that we have pissed on Native Americans for many years and I find that sports teams, by and large, is one way in which we honor Native Americans.  Many Native Americans feel the same way.  I am worried that we start to abandon some of these names, these people get further pushed out of the mainstream and completely off our radars.  How many people in this country know about the Seminoles or have heard of the Seminoles because of FSU?  A heck of a lot more than if that nickname didn't exist.  It's relevancy.  So if the majority of Native Americans want it gone....ACTUAL NATIVE AMERICANS and not their organizations (i.e. the AMA supported Obamacare but actual doctors are opposed to it....or unions support a certain law or politician but many of their membership doesn't) then I would be much more sympathetic.  HOWEVER, it's still a private company and they can do what they want.  If the people don't like it, don't buy their stuff, don't go to games, have protests every night.

Do the polls you've used in this thread qualify as actual Native Americans? (honest question because I really don't know).

You've used data to support the case that the name should be kept. That's great. Honestly, it's actually pretty compelling to me. I don't agree with the nickname and I agree with Keefe's post, but if the majority of Americans are okay with it, maybe I'm just being an uptight douche. It has happened before.

Here is what I'm getting at:

You've used public opinion and polls to support your position, but I have a feeling that if the public opinion changes, you still won't change your position. Seems fraudulent to use the polls now, but dismiss them later, right?

Are you prepared to accept a name change if/when the public demands it?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Careful, Keefe. To Chico, the USA was a much better place back then. If you listen closely, you'll hear him singing along with Archie and Edith on "Those Were The Days".

How much Massengill stock do you own?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Do the polls you've used in this thread qualify as actual Native Americans? (honest question because I really don't know).

You've used data to support the case that the name should be kept. That's great. Honestly, it's actually pretty compelling to me. I don't agree with the nickname and I agree with Keefe's post, but if the majority of Americans are okay with it, maybe I'm just being an uptight douche. It has happened before.

Here is what I'm getting at:

You've used public opinion and polls to support your position, but I have a feeling that if the public opinion changes, you still won't change your position. Seems fraudulent to use the polls now, but dismiss them later, right?

Are you prepared to accept a name change if/when the public demands it?

The latest polls are general polls of the general public, not of Native Americans only....is that what you mean?

As I said before, there are TWO issues at hand here, one is related to private business and what a business can do.   In my view, you should not force a private business to do anything if they are not acting illegally What they have done is not illegal.  If it is as bad as people make it out to be, then let market forces do their work and drum out their business.   That's an important part of this that very few people want to tackle.  This is a political issue for parts of the gov't, nothing more.

The other is about the nickname itself, which I gave my answer in the last response.

So, when are we changing the abortion laws.....since the public demands it?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Ultimately to answer your question, which I have answered here many times before.  I am greatly worried that we have pissed on Native Americans for many years and I find that sports teams, by and large, is one way in which we honor Native Americans.  Many Native Americans feel the same way.  I am worried that we start to abandon some of these names, these people get further pushed out of the mainstream and completely off our radars.  How many people in this country know about the Seminoles or have heard of the Seminoles because of FSU?  A heck of a lot more than if that nickname didn't exist.  It's relevancy.

Now here is an argument that makes sense to me. This is one I can get behind. It is a positive argument that explains the benefits of keeping the nickname. Until this point (since the thread was resurrected last week) all of your posts were attacks against other people's arguments. Those are fair game in a debate, but utterly useless without some sort of positive argument ton your own side. Before it seemed like you were arguing just because you hate political correctness. Not a positive argument. Arguing because you are worried that Native Americans will be pushed even farther out of our minds than they already have been? Positive argument.

I happen to agree with you. Having worked for the University of Utah, I know how much pride the Ute Tribe has for the mascot. They would have faded into history without the exposure and financial support created by the mascot. My issue with the redskins is that at least 29% of the honored population is offended by it. It also, as Keefe pointed out much more eloquently than I ever could, glorifies a past culture of racism and ignorance. Finally, while it may provide some sort of exposure for Native Americans, it provides no financial support. The University of Utah uses the Utes name, so they pay them for it. Same for Central Michigan and the Chippewas. I'm unsure with others. Finally, some universities do education with their fans and prevent things like fans bring trail of tears banners or white men showing up in war paint. As far as I know, the Redskins actually promote some of that culture.

If the Redskins changed to a specific tribe, with their blessing, and offered to pay them for their name and kept their fans in check, I would take less issue with it. Depending on the details, I might even full heartedly support it.

There is common ground here. Let's try to find it.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

The latest polls are general polls of the general public, not of Native Americans only....is that what you mean?

As I said before, there are TWO issues at hand here, one is related to private business and what a business can do.   In my view, you should not force a private business to do anything if they are not acting illegally What they have done is not illegal.  If it is as bad as people make it out to be, then let market forces do their work and drum out their business.   That's an important part of this that very few people want to tackle.  This is a political issue for parts of the gov't, nothing more.

The other is about the nickname itself, which I gave my answer in the last response.

So, when are we changing the abortion laws.....since the public demands it?

#1 It's a private business, so I'm fine with them doing what they want, but I'm also fine with people being pissed about it. It's America. The free market will eventually figure it out.

#2 I'm confused because you keep posting poll information, and now you are saying that poll information isn't determining your opinion. Why post the poll info then? It's not applicable is it?

#3 I disagree that the Redskins name is good way of honoring Native Americans, but that's just a simple matter of opinion.

#4 The abortion thing isn't applicable. I have my own opinion on the topic, and it's not determined by what the general public says. However, I also don't quote the polls when I'm asked about the subject (which is never).

#5 It seems like this is a political issue for you, and for me, it's not. It's just about right & wrong, not right & left. 

[Lennys Tap]

#1 It's a private business, so I'm fine with them doing what they want, but I'm also fine with people being pissed about it. It's America. The free market will eventually figure it out.

#2 I'm confused because you keep posting poll information, and now you are saying that poll information isn't determining your opinion. Why post the poll info then? It's not applicable is it?

#3 I disagree that the Redskins name is good way of honoring Native Americans, but that's just a simple matter of opinion.

#4 The abortion thing isn't applicable. I have my own opinion on the topic, and it's not determined by what the general public says. However, I also don't quote the polls when I'm asked about the subject (which is never).

#5 It seems like this is a political issue for you, and for me, it's not. It's just about right & wrong, not right & left. 

1.Totally agree - has anyone here suggested that the government order Dan Snyder to change the nickname? I would NEVER want that. Typical Chico straw man.
5. Exactly, but to the wackos, everything is political. On the fringe left, positives (warriors)are somehow demeaning. On the fringe right, racial slurs "honor" the obviously demeaned. Dig in your heels, common sense be damned.

[Coleman]

If the Redskins changed to a specific tribe, with their blessing, and offered to pay them for their name and kept their fans in check, I would take less issue with it. Depending on the details, I might even full heartedly support it.

That's the most intelligent compromise I have heard suggested yet on the subject. Bravo.

The Powhatan Confederacy actually inhabited the very land Washington, DC now sits on. Unfortunately, the Powhatan people were enslaved by white settlers and then almost completely wiped out in the Anglo-Powhatan Wars, so I don't even know if such an arrangement could be made with what is left of the tribe. The history of the Powhatan people makes the Redskins nickname even more insulting. Collectively, there are about 3,000 members left so maybe some sort of agreement could be cobbled together. If it was a nickname, mascot and logo that was approved by those peoples and granted them a share of revenue for usage of the name I could potentially support such a move.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

That's the most intelligent compromise I have heard suggested yet on the subject. Bravo.

The Powhatan Confederacy actually inhabited the very land Washington, DC now sits on. Unfortunately, the Powhatan people were enslaved by white settlers and then almost completely wiped out in the Anglo-Powhatan Wars, so I don't even know if such an arrangement could be made with what is left of the tribe. The history of the Powhatan people makes the Redskins nickname even more insulting. Collectively, there are about 3,000 members left so maybe some sort of agreement could be cobbled together. If it was a nickname, mascot and logo that was approved by those peoples and granted them a share of revenue for usage of the name I could potentially support such a move.

That's an interesting take on it.

You want to use our likeness and name? Pay us a licensing fee.

Not bad.